tv U.S. Senate CSPAN February 11, 2011 5:00pm-7:00pm EST
[applause] [applause] >> but the good news is, we are fighting back. regulation. you know, the arrogance of this administration and the 111th congress went beyond shoving legislation down our throat that we didn't lead called health care deform legislation. but they went so far as to not only shove legislation down our throats that we didn't need, but legislation that we did not want. [applause] [applause] >> oh yeah. they tried to hide it under we want to decrease cost. they tried to hide it under we want to increase susceptibility. now that the cat is out of the
bag, we know the health care deform legislation was an absolute disaster, and that's why the united states house is trying to repeal and replace. we're going to help them do that. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> too much regulation. according to the small business administration, based upon some of the latest data, they have calculated and estimated the cost of regulatory compliance, just regulation, on the small business in this great economy of ours. $10,000 per employee. every time a small business opens up in this country, they have regulatory compliance cost
of $10,000 per employee. if you only hire 20 employees, you do the math. just to open a business. i received the call one night when i was hosting my radio show, the herman cain show out of atlanta. [cheers and applause] >> and i got a call from a caller that called up and said mr. cain, i'm a restauranture. i own two. he said i have the cash flow to open up the third restaurant. i even have an a location to open up this restaurant. but i cannot open up this
restaurant because of all of the uncertainty hanging over this economy. this wasn't the first call like that that i have gotten. imagine the number of business people across this country, especially small to medium-sized business people who are reluctant to expand their businesses which would create more jobs because of the uncertainty hanging over this economy and the lack of leadership in the white house. imagine what would happen if we are able to unlease the full economic potential of this country. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> too much legislation. i didn't have to mention cap-and-trade, and tax and kill. i didn't have to mention the unfairness doctrine. i didn't have to mention any of the other that they are trying
now to get -- put on us through the back door. too much legislation. regulation. and taxation. you know, i've been on this planet 65 years. and i have been a businessman for over 42 years. i along with many of you, have come to one irrefutable conclusion, the only way to fix our messed up tax code is to throw it out and put in a whole new system called the fair tax. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> throw it out. and start over. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> throw it out and start over.
>> isn't that what you do when you mess up the cake? you throw it out and you start over. our tax code is not fixable. it's a mess. but as my maternal grandmother used to -- [no audio] -- our mess. and we have to fix our mess starting with throwing it out and starting over. we cannot fix it keeping around the edges. too much regulation, too much taxation. now how do we fight this fight? and beat back?
the same way that you have fought the fight to this point, to begin our journey to 2012. three things that you have to do. i have to do. and those that you influence will have to do. in order to get this nation off on the wrong track, back on the right track. first, we've got to continue to stay in own. stupid people are ruining america. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> any of you like me thought that all i had to do was register to vote, go to work, raise families, educate, that's
all you have to do to keep america strong. no, you have to become teachers and educators, because of those that are stupid. you have to stand strong. that's why you come to great conferences like this. that's why you go to hermancain.com for your information. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> and as we used to say on my radio show, watch out if you go to hermancain.com, you just might learn something. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> we have to city -- stay strong. this is one of our greatest weapons in this fight. and that is to know when they are trying to employ the syntaxes, i'm talking about the liberals. they don't have the three taxes. they don't have the strategy. they have an objection. the objective of the liberals is to destroy this country. the objective of the liberals is to make america mediocre like
everybody else who inspires to be like america. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> let me tell you something about mediocrity, it's not in an american's dna to be mediocre. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> not in my dna. they have an objective to destroy america. make it mediocre. to become part of this world order stuff. but they do have three taxes. which is why we have to stay informed or we will get head faked sometimes when they put out bad information, or attack the fair tax uses lies, flat out lies. and if your young kids haven't figured out what a lie is yet,
you can tell them. you are going to hear a lot of them between 2009 and 2012. they are trying to destroy the country at all cost. they don't care about the truth. they have all of the three tactics. s. i.n. they shoot the subject, they ignore the facts, and they name talk. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> there's no taxes, there is no strategy, expect the basic to try to continue to mid lead the american public. that's going in a minute. well, the war in afghanistan is uncertain. it's bush's fault. [laughter] >> everything is bush's fault. ignoring the facts.
this administration with their approval of the 111th congress authorized nearly $1 trillion which was supposed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. they did all of the spending, made government bigger, and now they want to ignore the fact that it did not work. but i got a message for the administration. we noticed. it didn't work. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> we noticed. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> and that's what they are afraid of. that's what they are afraid of. and that is you will influence more people with the facts, and i tell my listeners all the time. if you can get a liberal to
engage in an intelligent dialogue in the first place. [laughter] >> ask them to strip away the labels, and pick an issue and talk to them about the facts of that issue. you might make some progress. i've even had some folks call my radio show and admit that they are beginning to see the light. because some very factually motivated, very factually driven. they choose to ignore the facts, they ignore the facts that social security, medicare, and medicaid were headed for a train wreck before they passed another disastrous bureaucracy call to health care reform. they ignored the stuff that wasn't fix, that was broken, let's just ram through this political agenda. and maybe they won't notice. so their tactics are, they shift the subject, watch for that. they ignore the facts.
but you have to know the facts. and then they name call. you know, i've been called so many names for being a black american patriot who happened to be conservative. i started a list in my studio. [cheers and applause] >> i couldn't keep track of all of them. [cheers and applause] now you will get called racist simply because you disagree with the president who happens to be black. well, they call me racist too because i disagree with the president who happens to be black. go figure. [cheers and applause] >> so mathematically, the only conclusion that you can draw, it ain't about color, it's about if you disagree with the liberal leader, then you must be a
racist. no matter what color you are. i got a breaking news announcement for you. you are not a racist. you are patriots, because you are willing to stand up for what you believe in. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> paid -- patriots. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> and every time -- and every time they would call my show or they would send me a hate e-mail, i just smile and think about the vernacular of my grandfather. i does not care. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> because we got a list of them.
they have called me uncle tom, they have called me sell out, oreo, and then one night i got a call from a guy that came up with a brand new one. because i told you i had to start a list because there was too many of them. one night the guy calls up. this is how his voice sounded. mr. cain. i said, yes, sir. you are shameless. i said shameless? excuse me, sir, why do you say i'm shameless? it is shameless that you, as a black man, would disagree with our black president. i said, well, sir, i have two thoughts that maybe difficult for you to comprehend. but work with me. first, it may surprise you and a
lot of folks that some black people can think for themselves without having somebody else think for them. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> i know that's a shocker. >> and i said secondly, sir, -- secondly, and this one maybe even more difficult for you to understand. when this nation reaches a point where it's citizens cannot constructively criticize it's leaders, we are no longer a democratic republic. we have a become a nation of tyranny. that's not going to happen on our watch. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> it is our right to disagree.
[cheers and applause] >> so i had to add that to the list for me and niger's shames. the taxes. that's why we have to stay informed, secondly, stay informed. don't stay home. one the contributing factor to the current president of the current administration is that too many people stayed home because they didn't see the perfect candidate. well, let me tell you a little secret. you aren't going to find a perfect candidate that you agree on every single issue that's important to you. i used to tell my listeners, if you can find a candidate where you are in agreement seven out of ten, that's a home run. because if you were waiting for ten out of ten, america is going to continue down the wrong
track. stay involved. no matter what you do. [applause] [applause] >> so we've got to stay informed, stay involved. do what you can do. not everybody can run for office. not everybody is in a position to consider running for president. i'm just saying. i'm just saying. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> but everybody can do what they can do with the skills, the talents, and the time that god has allowed you to share while you are here on this planet. stay involved. [cheers and applause] >> and the third thing that we
have to do, stay informed. stay involved and stay informed, and stay inspired. because they want you to believe that we can't complete the journey of taking back our government. they want you to believe that change of control of the house of representatives last november 2 was just a flash in the past. that's what they want you to believe. you have to stay inspired. and i got to tell you when i woke up on the morning of november 3rd, i breathed a cautionary sigh of relief, because the citizens 'movement goes along the country showed that it is real and it's not over yet. because it is still continuing. [cheers and applause] >> and everybody has to find their own source of inspiration. my inspiration comes from god almighty.
my inspiration comes from my mother and my father. [applause] >> see, my mother and father walked off of the farm at the age of 18 literally with just the clothes on their back. they walked off of different farms. but they met up, got married, had two sons. we grew up in atlanta, georgia. when my father walked off of that farm, my uncle, when just turned 88 and was younger than my dad, when els jr., that's what they called them, he didn't believe that el jr. had shoes. just the clothes on his back. but he had some dreams. and dad taught my brother and i, you can achieve your american dreams if you believe in god, believe in yourself, and believe in the greatest country in the world.
those are the values that he taught us. [cheers and applause] >> so what they were able to do. what my parents were able to do to inspire us, inspires me because they wanted us to get a little bit better start than they did. and we did. now we want to give our kids and grand kids a little bit better start. which is why we are in this fight. let me tell you one of my other inspirations. her name is selena. she was born on january 22, 1999. 12 years ago. when i got to the hospital, just in time before her birth, and i went into that delivery room and looked that little face, look at that little newborn face that
wasn't more than 15 minutes old, my first thought that went through my mind was what do i do to make this a better world? i never forgot that thought. and i was asked by a reporter yesterday why was the birth of your grandchild so impactful on you considering a run for the presidency? what about your children? and i reminded her, when your children are born, you focus on their future. when your children -- grandchildren are born, you focus on the future of the nation. ask any grandparent and they will tell you. [applause] [applause]
>> that's where part of my inspiration comes. it comes from thinking about making this a better world. and we all have to do what we can do, using our talents and our faith. not only in the greatest country in the world, but those family principals that you heard talked about today. the declaration of independence was conceived by our great founding fathers. they didn't intend for somebody to recite, we hold the truth that is are endowed by the creator. it wasn't intended to leave that out of a speech. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> when our -- when our -- some of our early settlers of this country decided they wanted to put in god we trust on our of
currency. now you have some of the people that want to take that off of the currency. then in the 1950s when this nation was in the fight of its life against communism, the united states voted to add the words under god in the pledge of allegiance. it's not right that a united states congresswoman from minnesota by the name of betty mccollins would lead in the pledge of allegiance and skip over the words under god. it's not right. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> so my inspiration comes from my faith in god. my parents, what they did, it comes from the american dream that i have been able to achieve
in this great country, from inspiration comes from the fact that i believe that the founding fathers got it right. and as rick perry and others have said, we just need to get back to the constitution and back to the declaration of independence. we don't need to rewrite it, reneed to reread it, review, and relive by it. [cheers and applause] [applause] >> so the american dream is under attack. but the good news is we are fighting back. next stop, control of the united states senate. and that's the same time control of the white house with a brand new occupant in 2012. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]
>> as others have pointed out to you, you've had a long day. patriots don't get tired. patriots get energized. we still have a lot of work to do. one of the things that inspires me to even consider something as crazy as running for president of the united states, in the words of the gifter, gifter said freedom is never more than one generation away from distinction. we don't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. it must be thoughtful, protected, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our
grandchildren what the united states used to be like when men were free. i don't want to have that conversation with my grand kids, and i don't think you want to have that conversation with your grand kids. and so -- >> nope. >> -- we have an announcement to the liberals, the administration, and the president. the united states of america will not become the united states of europe, not on our watch. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪
>> i think that is not only one of the major challenges facing higher ed in this country but also facing our country. and that is how we maintain a healthy lifestyle and get kids to have the strength in the judgment to say no. >> r. gerald turner is the president of southern methodist university in dallas and sunday night he will discuss today's college students. his school is the site of the george w. bush presidential library and smu on c-span's q&a. >> this morning on "washington journal" we talked to the chairmen and ranking member of the house intelligence committee about the hearing held yesterday on groupwise security threats. this is an hour
>> host: we are up for what we hope you will find an interesting and informative hour. we have the top democrat and republican of the houseop intelligence committee. the new chairman is mike --w republican of michigan and his democratic colleague ofcr maryland, the ranking member as we call it in washington. gentleman thank you for beingf here. we have a fullar hour and i've t two goals. want to learn more about your views and what you heard about local threats but he also wanted to talk to you about how you want to organize you about how u want to organize this committee. you have been talking very publicly about your collective goals on bipartisanship and oversight. i want to play what you heard from egypt yesterday and use as a jumping off point for your views on the kind of intelligence you think the white house and the congress is getting. >> because of what happened in
tunisia, we were in a much better place to look at egypt and what was happening in egypt. we provided a number of reports about what was taking place. as you can see, i got the same information you did. there's a strong likelihood mubarak will step down this evening, which would be significant. >> if you had to give it a great, how would you give a real-time intelligence as is currently unfolding and has unfolded in egypt? >> i would give it at least a b- plus. host: mike rogers, what grade would you give the intelligence? guest: a-minus. they did a great job early on of saying we know there are problems in egypt. they knew there were problems in tunisia. it could not pick the time that it was going to happen, but
intelligence about the problems were there clearly. more importantly, once it happens, once the protests started, the real question was, did we have real-time intelligence? what were people thinking? i thought it was very good in real-time intelligence so that policy makers could keep up with the decision-king matrix -- the decision making matrix. i thought all that was very good. host: mr. ruppersberger, when you have leon panetta saying that is likely mubarak is stepping down and then it turns out that he does not in fact step down, what does that signal to the public about what washington knows? guest: as far as confidence, i have great confidence in our intelligence community. we have dedicated men and women
throughout the world collecting information and analyzing information. it showed that you just cannot predict what is in someone's mind. you look at what happened. the issue started when a person set himself on fire in tunisia. that started an uprising. the dictator of tunisia, who everyone thought would come down strong of any type of protest ended up leaving. you have the situation with the mubarak and it shows there's no crystal ball. we're looking for the trends and information. end-game is to protect our country from globalized threats. host: we will be opening our phone lines. you can also contact us by twitter and e-mail.
we welcome your comments or questions. we hope you had an opportunity to see all or part of the hearings before the committee yesterday where they heard from the intelligence chiefs about the global threats. the headline coming out was the threat from al-qaeda. can you tell us a little bit more about the state as a threat to americans' right now. guest: al-qaeda, over the last 10 years, since 9/11, has changed quite a bit. they have hathen affiliated with groups who would not have considered themselves al-qaeda members, but were terrorist groups who used violence to complete their goals. they started to get these affiliate's joined together. in northern africa is a great example and al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula and yemen and places like that. they have joined the al-qaeda network.
that increases the number of threats that the united states had to defend against. the challenge for us is that they have gotten more sophisticated and they have gotten larger through their affiliates. and it means that their finances have gotten stronger because all of these affiliate's now pay into al-qaeda to sustain the efforts. when they say it places a bigger challenge today than 9/11, that's what they're talking about. host: in a written statement, mr. clapper suggested that the complexity of the threats and the ubiquity makes the challenge for intelligence community's even greater. what should americans feel about the level of safety or threats overall? guest: we always have to be concerned. 9/11 showed we were not ready for that attack. when you look at terrorism from a global point of view, we have to focus on how al-qaeda
recruits individuals. that's why it's so important that we start working with the hearts and minds of different countries. for instance, in pakistan, afghanistan, trying to stop the training and education of extreme right-wing radical groups that are anti united states and anti israel. we have an example in afghanistan. we are trying now to educate young your children and counter what is going on in a lot of the other areas where these individuals are being trained -- even further, being trained to be suicide bombers. from our point of view, we have to look at the worldwide threat
from each country. we have to look at the training and analyze it to protect our country from terrorism. host:. cia director leon panetta once again on the threat of cyber attacks. >> the cyber a green that is this vastly growing area of the information that can be used and abused in a number of ways, but when it comes to national security, i think this represents the battleground for the future. i have often said that i think the potential for the next pearl harbor could very well be a sniper attack. host: what does he mean by that? what does a cyber attack to the equivalent of pearl harbor mean? guest: think of where we have come. this started with a guy in his mom's basement trying to hack into the local bank and bragging about it to his friends. it has grown from that to all
nations states dedicating a huge portion of their budgets to develop an offensive capability on cyber, meaning they can shut down or attack our servers in government or the private sector. what he is talking about -- if it were to be successful, and our folks are getting good and better every day, to be successful to shut down whole portions of our government to attack infrastructure energy grids and shut them down and have a major impact on the economy and on our ability to defend ourselves, not only from a government perspective, but a commercial perspective, as well. there are tens of thousands of attacks every single day. this problem has grown exponentially in a very short period of time. we only see the number of attacks increasing, not decreasing over time. host: how are we girding ourselves in the public sector
and the private sector against the threat? guest: i will give you the long answer. i was chairman of the technical tactical community of the intelligence committee that oversees cyber security. in my opinion, based on that four years serving in that committee, i think the cyber threat is one of the largest we have in our country. we are being attacked every day. other countries are getting information, whether it is military information, intelligence information, commercial trade secrets, corp. information, because of these cyber attacks. for a while, we were not where we needed to be as a country, but i give credit to admiral mcconnell, the former director of international intelligence, who made this a major issue. what do we need to do? nsa is as good as anybody in the country in developing technology to try to protect us from cyber
attacks. . 80% of what we do on the internet is in the private sector so what we need to do first is to make the public aware and the public needs to understand how serious this threat is and how we can protect ourselves by this thread. is going to cost billions of dollars to protect not only our military, our intelligence and our government and the private sector. the government can't pay for it also we will have to make sure that we submit the private sector understands where the threat is. an example of what is occurring out there though is wikileaks heard our country. it hurt our ability to get information but when certain companies we are dealing with wikileaks, mastercard being one, decided to pull out from their relationship they were attacked and the public saw that they were attacked. which is had which has had an
attack in nasdaq. that is very serious. just think when you get yourou bank records every month. it is all based on records and suppose your town had beennt hacked and you had a million dollars and all of a sudden it is $10,000. cyberattacks and individuals and countries are doing this have ability to make a habit with all of our systems systems thaty technology. right now it is a major issue. we need to educate the public. the confidence level is n.s.a. is one of the best and homeland security needs to be the bridge to coordinate with the public. we will be dealing with this a long time. host: i am getting messages from twitter like this. concern about privacy rights and people's own constitutional rights and growth of surveillance, and also the cost. we will come back to those after we hear from a few callers. baltimore, aaron, republican
line. caller: yes. the number two terrorist fox news reported he was eating at the pentagon after 9/11. explain about government involvement and why that is never talked about. just focusing on american people. host: i think it is a concern about conspiracy. guest: sure. i think there is a lot of misinformation out there about these types of issues. he was in the united states and was trained here, went to school he here, really self-radicalized here and reached a point where he wanted to go overseas and declared himself a non-u.s.
citiz citizen. affiliated himself with al qaeda and joined the declaration of war on the united states. so this was a transformation of an individual who had pretty strong beliefs and now presents himself as a dangerous terrorist in the al qaeda network. i say that because his goal is to recruit americans and western europeans who have no visa requirements to come to the united states, to radicalize and commit acts of violence to kill u.s. citizens. that is the concern of the united states, how do we stop that and educate them to make sure they are not being radicalized here at home to cause what are terrorist events. the great example is the fort hood shooting or times square bomber in new york. both of them were people who were radicalized by external
forces and were driven to do and attempt to commit acts of violence. and unfortunately in the case of hassan in texas he did commit an act of violence. host: chairman rodgers was a u.s. army officer and company commander. he became an f.b.i. agent and personal agent investigating public corruption as a member of the chicago bureau's organized crime unit. that was 1988 to 1994 then michigan senate in that body before coming to congress. dutch ruppersberger is in maryland's second district on the intelligence and armed services committee. he was a baltimore county executive and on the county council but is a lawyer and served as a county prosecutor. so, lots of experience in the
justice system and with organized crime, gangs and brings that experience to bear. i will go to the next call from chico, california, steve is a democrat. caller: hello. i understand we are talking about national security, and i have an issue here within the united states i was wondering about as far as national security. being terminally ill and having aids i have to wonder why i face having my door kicked in over medical marijuana when we can't control the tpfederal borders t make sure immigrants are not growing it to trade for other drugs or weapons. guest: the first thing, let's talk about knocking your door down. we live in a country that has checks and balances. our forefathers created a great system of government. law enforcement is not going to knock down your door unless there is probable cause which means law enforcement has to go to a judge to go into your home.
there are many issues we deal with in the united states. you alluded to immigration. i feel strongly we need to deal with the borders and you mentioned marijuana. we need to deal with the issue of mexico. we have put so much money into the middle east and to fight terrorism but we have turned our back on one of the real threats to the world and that is drugs. not only people who sell them, people who use them and the crime as a result of that. it is a matter of prioritizing what is best for our country. that is what we are elected to do and as far as constitutional civil rights, we are a very strong people on that and if they are violated people will be held accountable. host: back to some of the testimony from the hearing yesterday. this is from the f.b.i. director. following up on testimony earlier about the increasing
threat here within our borders of people who wish to do their fellow citizens rarely. >> this is a very bad time. it has gone up and down since september 11. we are in a period which reflects changes from our perspecti perspective. pakistan, afghanistan and out of yemen or right at the top i think mike would agree with that. then we get down to the home grown extremists who have grown over a period of time because of ease of access to the internet, use of the internet to process will ties and recruit and organize has grown. that provides a substantial challenge to us. host: more about the domestic threat, please. guest: part of that is the radicalization from overseas entities like u.s. citizens, understand the culture, using it
against us when he is trying to radicalize individuals like the "new york times" bomber, major hasan from the shooting in texas. they have two streams of threat. they are trying to infiltrate to do a 9/11 event or christmas day bomber where they train somebody, radicalize, train, finance, equip with an explosive device and were unfortunately successful getting it on an airplane and flying over detroit but for the unlucky operation of the item saved the lives of people. so they have an external threat into the united states and the other is radicalize and recruit at home in the united states. host: mr. ruppersberger, in response i reread the december 20 "washington post" piece that was called "top-secret america."
in part two it was really about the infrastructure built since 9/11. it is written the investigation based on 100 interviews found that technology and techniques from the battle fields have migrated into law enforcement agencies in america. the f.b.i. is building a data base with the names and information of employment history of thousands of u.s. citizens and residents who are believed to be acting suspiciously. increasing concern that it could end,in the public domain. there have been -- i don't know the number but fusion centers they are called that synthesizing the information. what can you tell americans watching this program about the protection of their privacy
rights at the time there are concerns about domestic secur y security? one of the jobs of our committee is to oversee the agencies and make sure that they are doing the right thing and they are following the constitution. we always have balance issues when it comes to attacks. when there is an attack and all of a sudden people say you have to be aggressive. we made a mistake. how is our intelligence community doing this. the intelligence moves on. there are different issues. when it comes to the constitution, we have laws in place and i represent n.s.a. it is in my district. i'm the first person they could talk to because i'm the first person on the committee that represents n.s.a. i can assure you there are checks and balances there to make sure they have not violated the constitution. they have inspector generals.
we have set up systems in the process to make sure there is no violation of civil rights. but that is what congress's role is. because if there are mistakes, a violation, we have to make sure we are on top of that. host: your thoughts on this? guest: we regularly review the process of what they do with that information and how they obtain it. there are rules, requirements and laws they have to follow to get that information even in the data base. our checks and balances are well under way. if there is a data base with someone in it there is some activity that meets the standard of the law to allow them to be placed in the data base. that is what americans need to understand. it notion that where half the story is told makes people wonder is my phone tapped, are they watching me. none of that is true unless you are involved in some criminal activity or a terrorist type of
planning event. both of those will get you on a list. that was the way before the technology got here and after the technology got here. now we just have different ways to communicate and talk so the data bases are going to be more robust. but everybody that is on that list got there because they were conducting an activity that rose to the level by law that would get they will there. host: are we talking about the concerns that your fellow members had about authorization of the patriot act? guest: we should be vigilant in watching agencies to make sure they are not invading someone's privacy, violating civil liberties. mr. ruppersberger and i have lots of conversations about this. we are passionate about making sure that we don't do that. it is important that we don't s subjugate the fourth amendment to anything but following the
constitution. that being said, i have never seen a bill more misrepresented than the patriot act. there are two court systems we have in the united states. the fisa court, foreign intelligence surveillance act court that deals with people conducting espionage and foreigners who are here maybe conducting terrorist operations. then you have the criminal court that we are familiar with. the standards for each court are the same. it is just the nature of what they investigate are different. what the patriot act says is if you are switching phones every five minutes that the government, if we have already proven to a judge that you are doing bad things with the phones, every time you switch we should be able to switch with you. that is what the patriot act does. host: here is the f.b.i. director talking about the patriot act provisions. >> last thing i would say as you and others have mentioned the threat increasingly is of lone
wolfs, persons who are radicalized domestically and the tools up for reauthorization are essential for our ability to identify terroristses -- terrorists in general and lone wolves. guest: first, the patriot act is an issue that concerns many americans because they are concerned over the overreefing of the f.b.i. and others. there is the balance that we need the tools and give the agencies and law enforcement agencies, f.b.i., the ability to do their job. on my side of the aisle there are people that will vote against the extension of the act. they have a legitimate point of view i understand it and we can do better. but usually the way legislation is made you have to get consensus and you move forward.
yesterday in which we don't have many open hearings but it is good for the public and applaud the chairman. the public can understand what is going on and how the intelligence community works. i think that i asked the question and the answer that the director said. if the act was not extended and we are voting on whether to extend it, what would be the consequence. you would not have the resources to do the job. what is the most important for me in the patriot act is the sunset. that means that we should reevaluate the law every two to three years and it shouldn't be political to see whether there are any violations of the law. we have to deal with the facts. if there is an issue of violation of lone wolf then we need to, when we reauthorize, we need to see if there is any violation and do we need to
change the law. so, sunset is the key issue and we have to look at the laws. host: for the chairman and top democrat on the house intelligence committee we are pleased to have them here. fayetteville, north carolina. barry. caller: good morning. on the cyber security, i don't really that as an issue. most of the technology is already debugged before it is introduced into the public. if i wanted to introduce code or program into someone else's computer, nine out of 10 times, i mean, you know, if that person is of importance or has great responsibility they are not going to introduce or have their computer and their information is going to be on a separate sexual. it won't be accessible by the internet. the other thing of technology,
when i was growing up i used to hear stories about people, like from the radio stations they used to get broadcasts and they could hear the radio in their head. that is another technology that -- host: i will stop there and stay with the first one because both guests are shaking their heads no at your statement computers were protected. guest: it is scary the capability that nation states -- take china or russia that dedicates some of their smartest individuals to be able to get around fire walls and get into your computer without anybody knowing it, take information and exploit the information and take it back home with them. or they go in and disable your computer or disrupt it or make it do something it doesn't want to do. that is what has happened the
last few years. they are exceptional good at breaking down systems on the computers. i would not feel safe for one minute that they couldn't get in and do something on your computer. so we have groups that work to keep it safe and they do a pretty good job. but we need to understand when a nation decides they are going to apply resources to breaking your code and circumventing your fire walls they will be successful some of the time. that is why we've the n.s.a. and organizations with some of the smartest people you will ever meet making sure we have defenses in place that we can deal with this kind of technology that is very good and dangerous. host: what are lessons learned from the wort was .. le some of its nuclear ambitions?
guest: i won't talk about that but what i will talk about is the sophistication other countries, hackers and others have to be able to attack us on a regular basis. as we speak our pentagon and our country is being cyber attacked by other countries, by other hackers and what concerns me, countries that are trying to get inside information from intelligence from the defense point of view, what our government leaders are thinking. what concerns me is with al qaeda, who we know is our enemy, could hire some of these hack ers to do damage. you can look at when russia went to attack georgia the first thing they did is cyber attack. cyber attacks are serious. they are one of the biggest threats to our country and technology keeps evolving and we have to stay on top of it. the good news is that we have some of the best minds dealing with it. but there are other minds that
are good also. so, it is a serious issue and we have to take it and prioritize it and team with it. host: houston, don, independent line. caller: yes. first point, i don't remember the guy's name but he was from pakistan and he became radicalize radicalized by drones bombing his villages. second point, seems to me like 10 years plus after this war on terror run by our military corporate industrial complex and a lot of congressmen and senators that are well funded by these people, it is not going too well. it is going to wind up radicalizing a lot of guys just like the guy from pakistan.
host: u.s. foreign policy and its possibility of radicalizing people. guest: we have to understand something. if the enemy has a safe haven anywhere what we -- in afghanistan the reason 9/11 happened is because they had created a safe haven meaning they had freedom to operate, recruit people and train them and gather finances, to sponsor events that they could assemble and put together to conduct an operation like the 9/11 operation. what the united states policy has been is we will not allow safe havens to exist. wherever they are we are going to find them and act to disrupt the activities. some notion that there is bombing of villages is just not true. there is no -- not the pakistanis wouldn't do it, we don't do it in afghanistan. we target bad guys in
afghanistan. the pakistanis have their own effort in pakistan. so, this notion that there is a lot of civilian casualties is not true. one thing we have found is over the last 10 years is as aggressive as they are and as committed as they are to commit an act of violence in the united states and in europe, we have been able to stop or disrupt every single one of them. that is a combination of fortune policy we have when it comes to places like afghanistan and the intelligence services efforts to disrupt the events before they happen in europe and here in the united states and around the rest of the world. host: this viewer goes back to the discussion about congressional oversight of civil rights under the patriot act and asks have there been claims of civil rights violations and have they opinion successful? >> we had an issue when the f.b.i. was sending out letters or getting information and we felt there was a violation.
we worked with the f.b.i. on that. that was an example of sunset. when you have hearings to review what you have done and we dealt with that. so far we have seen mistakes and when you deal with volume -- i will give you an example. you have n.s.a. whose job is to hear millions of conversations and we have the technology not only to collect it but to analyze it so the information that deals with terrorists and their plans to attack us or dealing in afghanistan or in iraq, this is what they do. so i think we are on top of this. but we have to look at it every day because when there is a violation it can be against the law and people will be held accountable no matter where they work. host: next call is from orchard park, new york, carl, democrat.
caller: yes. i hate to rain on your picnic but i'm not sure the american people are getting good bang for the buck with the money we spend on intelligence. i don't think most people realize it runs up around $40 billion a year, more than the rest of the world combined spends for intelligence. host: you may not be happy about the numbers it is more like $80 billion a year. caller: i stand corrected and that makes my point a little better. we hide the appropriations in various other committees, various other agencies i should say and what have we got for it? for example, on 9/11 the c.i.a. didn't have a clue. shortly after that, just before president bush ordered an invasion of iraq, we had the c.i.a. director say mr. president, it is a slam dunk,
saddam hussein has weapons of mass destruction. shortly after that the president awarded that c.i.a. director the presidential medal of freedom. what did the congress do? did they bring back a church committee to find out how and what went wrong with the c.i.a.? no they went on their way funding it just as they always did and say wonderful things like you two gentlemen are doing this morning. host: he provides a great jumping off point for how you want to run the committee. guest: first of all, let me go back to the church committee got us into trouble in the sense that it scaled down and really canceled a lot of very important programs in the intelligence world that cost us valuable information going into the 9/11 event. in the 1990's they so cut the intelligence agencies and budgets and personnel by tens of thousands of people that we had
whole sections of the world that we had no eyes and ears in. we didn't know what was going on. i argue that was a huge, huge mistake for us and it showed going into 9/11. so, what happened after 9/11 is we got back into the human intelligence business. in the 90's we decimated our ability to recruit foreign spies to help us give information to find out what was going on to avoid trouble and wars and other problems. what happened of the 9/11 is that we decided in a hurry we better rebuild our ability to recruit foreign spice in foreign countries to understand what is going on to avoid trouble. that was a big cost increase. the technology between 9/11 and today in the intelligence business has grown.
one, we just got better at using technology to help us find out information and allow us to make good decisions. two, we had to have technology to defeat foreign nation technology that is -- again i want to stress this -- it is tens of thousands of attacks on our cyber infrastructure in the united states every single day. it is an unbelievable amount. people around the world still want to see the united states fail. they spend a lot of money and effort to do that. it is a combination, and finding the balance of where we go forward. i have been aggressive and i know dutch has about saying we can to longer sustain the growth in the intelligence business and we will have to scale back a little bit. what we don't want to do is go back to the 1990's where you go into an event like 9/11 not having a full scope of information that you could have.
so our argument is intelligence isn't a lux ary any more. it is a necessity. good intelligence means you avoid trouble. host: comments? guest: i agree with mike. we were not ready for 9/11. for republicans and democrats, they cut the intelligence committee after the berlin wall came down. we didn't identify or understand the danger of al qaeda. now we have to reevaluate and we have reevaluated. we are spending a tremendous amount of money and we have to make sure our job is oversight and to make sure that the money we are spending is used the right way. i also sat on the appropriations committee and there are prioriti priorities. one thing of the costs are in the area of technology. i represent n.s.a.
there is a lot of technology and we always have to keep,with other countries that are using technology against us. we have to stay ahead of the curve. another issue is space. one of the main reasons we are the most powerful country in the in the world and have freedom and liberty is because we control the skies. when sputnik came out years ago the concern was russia with control the skies. we put a man on the moon and as a result of research that put us on a level that we were experts in the field and continue to be but we're starting to slip. china is budget money into improve their military and space program. they are going to go to the moon again and talking about partnering with russia. satellites help us take pictures and a lot of what we do. we have to be prepared. i don't know what the gentleman was talking about, we are
working with people and continue to spend money. we take this seriously and we have experts who give us information and we make decisions on budgeting and policy. host: this is not the direct purview but in the event of terrorist attack one thing this country has not done is build a first responders system. we have seen the broadband prupl to allow agencies to talk to each other. why are we not further along? >> i think there was disagreement of who owns it and how we should distribute it. i believe the first responder community should have a first bite at that apple and we have to change on the broadband to give tell the ability to have abscess. they need the bandwidth to do what they have to do. i think there have been disagreements about how we do it and how we get it moving.
host: are you happy about that? guest: no. i think it is taking too long and we will have to get better at it. budget constraints in the states and local municipalities is adding to the frustration. it is an investment and that is probably going to take longer than we need. it has gotten been it was. it is not where it needs to be. host: baltimore city, maryland. republican. caller: hello. one thing i would like to find out is dutch change his mind about the dream act. i know this is a little bit off, but it has to do with maryland. right now in maryland they are trying to bring that back. they don't want to check on the illega illegals. as you can tell, i'm not from
this country and i came the legal way. he said something before about the border with mexico and drugs. one of the biggest problems is not just the drugs, it is the illegals coming in. i know, being from that area, some people say there are a lot of people trying to come in through the border and all you have to do is listen to the way they speak. some are very quiet and don't want to say anything because they don't know spanish. guest: immigration is clearly an issue we have to deal with. we need to protect our borders. we have to deal with the issue of illegal immigration, no question. i feel very strongly we need to use our resources to not only deal with the issues we talked about with mexico but have a plan. with respect to the dream act, you have a situation where you have illegal immigrants and they
have children in the united states or come to the united states when they were young. we have to find formulas to start to make a difference as it relates to immigration. this was a situation that would give an incentive for the children to go to college or the military that would be a requirement to have them come to citizenship. we have these individuals that are out there and they could be productive americans paying taxes. but immigration has to be dealt with. wove it come together and start taking the next step to develop formulas to solve the problem. if you are here illegally you are committing a crime. if we took every police officer in this country and had them deal with the issue of immigration they would not be able to handle the people here illegally but also it with take them away from the jobs they are doing in crime, rape, burglary
and whatever. so it is an issue we have not dealt with. host: dennis lane asks on twitter please ask if corporations are collecting information that is turned over to the government that is prohibited for the government to collect on their own? guest: there is no information that is collected anywhere that doesn't have due process attached to it. you have to have due process to get any information. as an f.b.i. agent if i wanted to find out who rented a car and fill the blank of a car rental corporation i would have to show,with a subpoena. it is no different with any type of information. host: including the telephone companies and phone calls you make? guest: if you are going to collect information you need a subpoena to do it. if the government is compelling somebody to do something they have to have a subpoena or a court order. host: next caller is abdullah watching in minneapolis.
independent. caller: thank you so much. my question is about home grown terrorists. and the role islam plays when incidents of terrorism happens. first of all, i would like to state that i'm a muslim and i'm very much embarrassed and affected by what these evil guys do anywhere around the world, including the united states. however, when you watch tv and incidents of terrorism are discussed, you will find that people are painting all of us with a broad brush and blaming
islam on it or -- and when you go to airports, you are easily picked on from the line. when people hear your accent or suspect you of being a muslim you are easily picked on. i would like to know what the chairman and ranking member think of this. host: michigan has a big arab american community so there are concerns about that. guest: we don't have any concerns about an arab american community in michigan. we are proud of the contributions they make. when we talk about home grown, our biggest concern on home grown terrorism is radicalization. what we hope to do is involve imams from all over the country in starting to speak out and help those muslims who are being radicalized and pull them back
to the faith of peace. our problem is that the people who understand american culture is using the things he knows about american culture to get into the heads of the individuals and pull them through a radicalization process that leads them to be willing to commit acts of violence. the way we stop that in the united states is have cooperation from muslims and communities and arab communities and we have a lot of christian arabs in michigan as well. that community needs to help law enforcement identify individuals who are going through this process and stand up more often than they do to speak against what is this radicalization process. guest: clearly home grown terrorism is a great concern. it is very difficult from and it
intelligence point of view when you have an individual, american individual who has been radicalized. how this is occurring and what our information shows is that the internet, the social network, is where a lot of this occurs. the one has been attempted to make this happen. as far as the issue of problems with the muslim community and the fact they have been discriminated against, it is unfortunate the acts of a few affect everyone. the best way to do this is develop relationships with the communities and individuals and working with the leadership in the muslim community to say that the koran doesn't say you want to kill people. so we have to be aware of the home grown terrorists and that is where the community itself and other people, if they see an
individual that looks as if he or she is going the wrong way and could try to be a suicide bomber, we need help from americans also. host: another question of preservation of rights. the person says why did the n.s.a. put fiber y's at every major switching station in the u.s.? guest: if you are compelling someone to get information you have to have the third-party adjudication. there is no instance where you don't have to have it. host: so the n.s.a. is not spying on all information. guest: they have to do it through a court order or a subpoena. guest: and there are systems of checks and balances. we have systems, we have congress, inspector generals.
there is -- we also have the justice department that oversees these. host: i want to show a statement from yesterday. >> i want to welcome dutch ruppersberger as the new ranking member. he has a solid record and he will serve the committee and country well. dutch is also a friend. i look forward to working with him to foster the bipartisan energy to lead the committee to our oversight responsibilities and to keep america safe. guest: dutch wants us to run that again. host: i wanted to play that because i have seen two interviews where you emphasize this bipartisanship and you don't want the committee to be political. will you talk about those themes and why they are important and how you want to run things? . when the committee was founded in the 1970's it was supposed to
be a quiet, thoughtful committee that dealt with the very difficult decisions and policies and over sigsight responsibilit. the 17 agencies that we have that are supposed to collect information to keep america safe. it is a huge responsibility. most of the issues that we deal with should be bipartisan if n nonpa partisan -- in nonpartisan. it has become highly charged and political and i think it has done a disservice to america's oversight of the intelligence community. if they don't take the committee seriously they are going to do things that they should not be doing. it is our job to make sure they don't do that. by the way, if they need resources to do the job they need to do we are supposed to be there. so we have had a lot of conversations about this. there are going to be times when
we disagree and policy issues where we disagree and we will do that in a way that is respectful and civil and we are going to move on to the next set of issues. that is our pledge to even other and our responsibility to be that interface between america and americans to do the business of the intelligence community that they can't see and know about. host: and have concerns about. guest: absolutely. and they should have concerns. host: let me ask you, congress is getting a rap for how partisan it has become. we see it on a regular basis. do you think members can check those feelings? guest: we better have. the stakes are too high. this is one thing we should have learned the last election. people are sick and tired of the partisan politics that were occurring in congress. this committee is a committee that is very important because we are dealing with national security and people's civil rights and talking about a lot
of money. when you talk about space and cyber security and everything. i think that chairman rogers and i both have had experience in law enforcement. we tease about it because i tell him that i was the prosecutor and you were the f.b.i. act and the prosecutor is supposed to control and yet he reminds me he is now the majority so he is going to win most of the votes. notwithstanding that, we have committed to each other we are going to disagree on issues. i know people on my side have issues with the patriot act. we will debate them and hopefully come to a conclusion in the best interest of our country. if you look at what has happened on the committee and it has gotten way too political, we have not been able to pass a budget in six years. that is inexcusable. we are supposed to be the experts. we are having the hearings. we are supposed to over ssee al the agencies that deal in intelligence. we have not been able to agree
on a budget or get one passed. that means the appropriators make the final decision. that is inexcusable. i feel strongly about working together. we will work together. a lot of what we do in life is about relationships and trust. we have committed to make sure this is a bipartisan committee that will do the best we can to protect our country. host: we have a tweet. not only does national security have to be bipartisan it has to listen to opposing voices. do you intend to bring critics of the agency before the committee? guest: we have. there are a lot of members who are critics of the agencies. both dutch and i have been critical of the agencies when we think they are wrong. our job is not to be shells for the agency. we have done no service to them if we do that. but we've people come in who have problems and concerns with the agencies. as we said over time and as we
have said individually to the agency directors, we are going to be critical when we ned to be. we will be supportive where we can be. our job is not to be yes men to the community. if we do that, i think both of us would consider that a failure. they don't do everything right and when they do we will be there. host: our last call is sullivan, missou missouri. mark. caller: i just turned down my phone. host: go ahead. caller: thanks for c-span. host: we have a bad questiconne. caller: first of all the two leaders you have there, about every other word out of their mouth is 9/11. why don't they bring up the 1993 bombing of the world traede center where the p.b.i. supplied
the truck and bomb they switched for a real bomb that blew them up. they killed six u.s. citizens. host: another person concerned about conspiracy. guest: that is almost impossible to answer a question like that. as a former f. pwfplt eufpb.i. e the oath to protect the united states and the constitution. for some thought that the u.s. government will kill its own citizens to promote anything is wrong. there was a trial and conviction in the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. the blind sheik went to jail and some of his associates. that has been debunk pwued wher somebody went to jail. host: thank you both for being here. i know you will be doing much of your work behind closed doors but i will invite you to come back from time to time. it is an important way to talk to the public.
rules with the congressional review act which mandates that senate vote on blocking new thehe chief congressional correspondent for the washingtoe examiner. what are house republicans trying to accomplish in directing the ten committees to review government regulations? ,in reshe to republicans wantto ten standing committees to go and regulationt of their jurisdiction and try t ferret out the ones they thinkm are hurting job growth and themy economy. ese w long will the committees have to get their
recommendations back to the house? >> they haven't set a deadline. i think what they're wanting to see right noinw there's already been one hearing that took plac on thursday. darrell issa had a committee hearing where he interviewed tot eight members from the business community to talk about what wae bothering them and affecting their ability to create jobs ior to the regulations. o ce to get those back it'sact,t going to be an even bigger fight to see whether or not they can get the vote to get rid of some of these regulations. today's vote there's a lot of democrats who are saying short, fine, i like to vote for a bill that takes a close look at the regulations.nd there will be questions whether they are willing to support getting rid of the specific regulations such as the epaprop. regulations or the safety regulations or things that the fda regulation, for example, so that's going to be a bigger fight down the road. but today, however, this is like saying we are making the effort to try to get rid of the
regulation at the business committee has told us and have a job growth. it's going to be tough for many democrats to vote against that, just given the atmosphere, given the atmosphere among the voters these days about wanting a the economy to improve and the feeling that the federal government is too big and too expensive.neffecve, spaghetti are recommending to get rid of some governmentciente relations, are they willing to come up with better ones or do they just want to scratch them all together?hat we're l abou >> for the republicans it sounds like the one to scratch them ale together and the democrats make the point that federal regulations are the reason we have airbags or smoke detectors. the safety for toys and food. so you don't want to get rid ofs all the regulation. to you want to just take a close look and get rid of anything that is really onerous or just getting in the way. but i think the problem here isa thatrt the two parties differ or fla really is important. i think that democrats certainly epa regulations are important and they are and i'lle important step in reducing theie view on the other greenhouse gas
it's costing the taxpayers and for instance one republican got today and said she $1.75 trillion annually is the cost to jobs to the regulations. there is argument back-and-forth over the value of these regulations versus the cost and republicans won the argument, i right now because the state of the economy. but whether or not on the road they can say we want to get rid of the epa regulations which clearly the republicans are setting their sightsck on here.e and many of the regulations that are included in the health care m form law that they feel are going to hurt businesses.. so there's going to be -- that is where the fight is going to become involved in the health care ball and the epa regulations. statistical seconds left.r let's look ahead, there's a congressional break coming up for presidents day. what is on the agenda for next week?all busi >> next week may be one of the
most interesting weeks to watch for the republicans because they set their sights on cutting $100 billion from this year's budget that the money based on last year's presidential request. 100 billion less than what president obama had requested. that's a huge cut. it's not much in terms of deficit reduction but for the members to swallow, so it's going to be interesting to seego not only whether the democrats will increase this, which you're probably not going tot see many democrats, but in the one republican party it's going to be a lot of members who g are really worried about the impactj of these cuts. yet they feel obligated to go forward with it because theychin promised on the cagmp 6aign tral this year, so it's going to be an interesting debate to watch. >> susan ferrechio is the chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiner. thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much.
a new report shows that chinese and indian born students make up a majority of doctorate degrees in the areas of science and math that u.s. schools. immigration experts discussed a report and compare the findings for the u.s. foreign students. the brookings institution and george mason university co hosted the event. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> okay. good morning everybody. thank you for coming. david asked me to do this in ao slightly different order than is listed in the program.
we are going to do it as on the front side of the program, soit let's begin with bob hamilton. the first speaker but we have some logistical challenges here get that first one loaded andat i'd think we will be ready to go. go. >> the ceasefire. very good. >> good morning. my presentation is focused on doctoral degree attainment by four students that used u.s. universities in the same engineering field. this can be considered as a form of highly skilled decoration for the purposes of education. the findings presented here are from a paper co-authored by myself and my two colleagues from george mason university,
connie mcnealy and wayne perry. angst of the national science foundation for their report. on a personal note, i first became interested in immigration and education in 1989. i just got out of the marine corps and i traveled to tokyo for your comments to the japanese that a local school. not too many westerners in the school, mostly korean and chinese students. and none of the students spoke english so we degree chance to communicate in only japanese. a tremendous experience, but the experience i also gained a great respect for those who leave their friends and families for many years to pursue education in a foreign country. again, my talk focuses on science and engineering doctoral attainment at u.s. universities. the time period covered in this study is 1994 to 2005.
doctoral attainment data was collected from foreign students representing 181 nations in the fight field -- the five fields of study or physical sciences sciences, life science is, engineering, not on accent computer science is in social and behavior sciences. during the 12 year period as the screen shows, the count was 96,466 foreign doctorates in science and engineering field. so it's a generally 100,000 students traina told their time. with their science and engineering doctorates of universities. let's talk about a conceptual framework for the top this morning. this conceptual framework is offered to help better understand the phenomenon are foreign students traveled to the united states for their science and engineering doctoral degrees. first of all you can visualize the pipeline from each of the 480 when the first entry nations
to universities, but also realize the same pipelines are similar pipelines from the 181 nations also extend to other nations with the degree granting university such as australia, canadian and european nations fear the pipelines to universities can be viewed as only one component of a global student migratory network. and further the student pipelines to the united states appear to be facing growing competition from other nations desiring the best and brightest students of the world to attend their home nation universities. it is also helpful to view as home education, that is kindergarten through 12th grade in university education in terms of the domestic student education and screening pipeline at work prior to the students to the united states. all said, the students who have obtained their science and engineering that is in the
united states have traveled a tough road. first they have to pass the often challenging domestic education screening and selection process and then they had to compete with other foreign students to gain admittance to a u.s. university. now let's talk about the role of the u.s. universities. as for the u.s. universities, they have played a greater role beyond educating and training foreign science and education doctorates. the university should be viewed as a global recruitment and quality control mechanism that screens and collects the best and brightest of the world's foreign students for admittance into doctoral programs. it should also be noted that the u.s. taxpayer has not paid for the foreign student kindergarten through 12 in undergraduate university education said that the home university -- and the home nations except the bill for
this. so it seems like the united states has gotten a pretty good deal. that is foreign governments pay to educate their home nations students among the u.s. universities have the pick of many of the best of the greatest weather and science and engineering doctoral programs. alice talked a little bit about the role of the u.s. government. as for the u.s. government, and heavily subsidizes doctoral education to include that for students. the rationale being that there are public benefits resulting from this type of education and research, development and innovation will suffer if students are not offered government and his to stain the deck for a paper in a few. the u.s. government also issued student visas. it should be noted the student visa pipelined was disrupted due to the 9/11 2001 attacks, prompting the u.s. congress to
take an interest in helping to establish a new student visa tracking system. further, foreign doctoral students also appear to benefit universities in a situation similar to on-the-job training, where the students are employed as relatively low-wage, highly skilled research and teaching assistants while they pursue their doctoral degrees. let me just get a drink of water. excuse me. okay. as stated, foreign doctoral attainment at universities is a case of highly skilled migration. what seems to have generated policy interest has been a relatively large increase in the presence of foreign doctoral students on u.s. campuses in recent years.
for example is the chart shows, in 1980 there were less than 3000 science and engineering doctorates at american universities. the numbers 2842. as you see, this represented only 16% of the total, meaning that 84%, science and engineering doctorates attained a u.s. universities were obtained by u.s. sec, the numbers change from 1980, 1994, 2005, three reference points here. in 1994 the numbers increased almost 7000, which is 6950. by 2000 buy the numbers exceeded 11,000. and this number increased the student representation to almost 40% of all doctors attained at american universities. as the next slide shows, it should be noted that there is
variation between the five fields. for example, this is for 2005. as the chart shows, you see a great foreign domination of the engineering field for doctors. 61% of all thought traits in 2005 were by foreign students pay on the other end of the spectrum as you see why science 20% of life-sciences obtained by foreign students coming in at 72% if my math is correct, 72% of all doctors were retained by u.s. citizens. so you see the variation here. so my point is that we want to study the phenomenon, let's talk about a five different fields. as a notice also social and behavioral science is, only 21% are obtained by foreign student. that means 49 were by u.s. citizens. now, the findings of the study are that four nations dominate
in science and engineering doctoral attainment for 1994 to 2005. nations are china, india, south korea and taiwan. if you look at china and india, i think it's fairly apparent that these are large nations -- population countries. and the reason there are many in chinese science insuring doctors is there a large donation populations. what is interesting is the outliers here are south korea and taiwan with relatively small populations, both of these nations and about 10,000 science and engineering doctorates are during this time. so the question more than why is there so many chinese and indians, i think the more interesting question is why there are so many taiwanese doctorates during this time. however, as the time. progressing from 94 to 2005
coming soon to chinese numbers increased dramatically in indian and south korean numbers were fairly static and taiwanese and showed a large decrease. this chart shows the change in chinese doctoral attainment for 1994 to 2005. you can see the screen, let me talk about this. in the engineering field, in 1994, only 136 -- only 186 engineering doctorates are attained by chinese students peered by 2005, the number increased tenfold, more than tenfold to a little over 1500. tremendous increase. as you see that the share of the chinese that trades among the foreign population also in creased sec and the ethical sciences 30%, life-sciences 32%, engineering and math and
computer science 39%. you also notice the chinese representation in behavioral science is fairly small. i think the idea here is chinese students are less likely to become economists and social scientists are likely to become canada's, engineers and physicists. two minutes, very good. i think an interesting question. let's talk about engineering one more time. if you look at the 39% share in 2005 for chinese engineers for the 61% share for all foreign events, what it means in 2005, one out of four doctorates at american universities were obtained by students. and for just a question for me as why are so many engineering.traits on the one hand being detained by students in so few are being attained in the life-sciences compared to
american u.s. citizens? okay, in closing, the best and brightest of the science and engineering student from emerging market nations like china, india, russia and turkey will be an increasingly priced even resource to be recruited and competed over by developed nations with lower birth rates and creasing pools of talented young people. the united states should keep this in mind when formulating it migration policy. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, bob. that was fascinating. when the hold ahold q&a until the end i believe. so patrick, i believe you are next. >> thank you. >> so what i would like to do is talk briefly in a non-technical
manner about two research papers i've been working on. the first one is about the students at the university and then everything about the project. the first speaker in keeping motivation for the paper i'm going to present, let me show you more numbers in the same line. so if you look at the population of students who finish degrees in the united states then you look at where the two got the degree, there's a surprise that more students had come from the same university in china. so, maybe it's because it is quite surprising that you take
someone who finishes a decree from the u.s. university is more likely to have done the degree at the university for the institution. so, the fire slightly deceiving because there are many good u.s. universities and not many good chinese universities. the figures i represented earlier were about 15%. overwhelmingly, we see a sizable fraction of the science and engineering workforce in china. about 9% were born in china as
of the 2000 census. if you take them altogether, about 47%. so is the leader of the contributions to u.s. science, one of these papers was on joe soprano. and i can get into a discussion about exactly the contribution of these papers. what is more interesting as all these papers came to the same conclusion, which is that migrants make the populations and contributions intend to be more productive on average been looking at science and engineers. so in my own work, we have something quite similar, but a bit more specific about the students. we're asking if the chinese students during this compared to the students.
so we have agreed that i'm not going to give and not. we have about 16,000 students graduating from universe these in 2008. about 16% of which are chinese. and for a couple reasons we also could have a national science fellowship program. so it's a very prestigious award for u.s. residents who wish to pursue the training in u.s. universities. so, these are the results. i apologize for the technical table which is coming from the paper is held. so we are looking at what compares among three groups of students.
and in that table they can mostly be interpreted with differences. so the chinese students are about 25% to 40% low productivity of students. what we do in current one is put all the students together and then to compare students one and the same programs. and in the same advice he appeared as result. if 20% to 25% more papers and that is why we have the numbers and fellows. and you can see the difference between the chinese students and other students are same order of magnitude. so many students do almost as well as the fellows. at least we extend the same
programs, so we're working with the same advisors. the interesting part is why is that the chinese students do well and so stories are following. they have announced a man for education, but to another sound, demand by chinese universities have present. so there are demands for quality education and student identified however, u.s. admission like formulas to the chinese system is going to be more difficult for chinese students to get on the program then it is for american students. the first evidence is the case. but the other part of the stories if you're in china and you want to get your degree in the u.s., you need to have an undergrad degree for one of the most prestigious schools to get
so the access to the high quality talented student and the universities to produce more science the number of limitations to as lining his we pon't know what happens after ap the ph.d. so we don't know the chinese student -- we know theht chinese students stay in the u.s. but we don't know they continue their other students st we knew about the initial differences so we know the differences continue over if the engineers and it could be the chinese students may lack some of the skills which may be important. 1. i need to emphasize it doesn't follow from the fact whether the chinese students
have a strong publication but the difference if it is good for the student is good for america. there's a couple arguments and the one is that chinese immigrants may reduce incentives for americans to engage for instance by reducing the wages. and just who this point besides the policy that could be used to address the concern and in particular the number amount of the nsf could be increased to make the carriers more attractive for talented americans during this immigration policy and since i have three more minutes, let me talk about my paper on immigration today speaking we don't know much about mobility
choices in the u.s.. we can not to a certain extent surveys but we don't know what happens to them, [inaudible] so chemistry, a chemical engineering departments and volume of the serving there is 17 years and the underlining population with some caveat. so i am following the careers move. it is quite striking when the sense that only about 9% to some country, so about